Valve lets you pay for the beta with Steam “Early Access” program

Buy it now, play it now, then play it again later when it's actually done.

Tired of waiting for games to be fully complete and released before you can buy them? Wish you could play a game while it's still a bug-riddled, in-development mess? Well, Valve has got you covered with its new "Early Access" sales program.

In all seriousness, Early Access is being sold as a way for players to purchase, um, early access to games they're excited about and actively take part in the development process. For developers, it's a way to raise additional money for a game that's not quite complete yet and get a bevy of eager beta testers to help work out the bugs before a game is finally released. "This is the way games should be made," trumpets the launch FAQ.

Valve is launching the Early Access program with 12 games, ranging from the alpha for massive shooter Arma III to super-indie efforts like Prison Architect and Kerbal Space Program. Those who buy the Early Access editions of the game will get regular updates from the developer and full access to the final game when it is deemed "released." Valve is looking to slowly expand the program with games from Steam Greenlight and other titles that are already approved for Steam.

This kind of buy-and-try pre-release sales model isn't that new anymore. Millions of people paid to download Minecraft when it was still technically in alpha and beta, making the game a phenomenon well before its "official" full release on November 18, 2011. Many crowdfunding efforts also promise that early funders will be among the first to play a game's beta when it's ready. Steam's Early Access program is a little different, though, in that they are only selling access to games that are playable from the moment you pay for them. Even games that are actually fully "released" these days often get significant post-release updates that make the initial purchasers into effective guinea pigs.

All in all, this is definitely a better system than digital pre-orders, where you pay upfront and have to wait, sometimes for months, before actually getting what may or may not be a great game. Still, with the almost total lack of refunds for Steam purchases, you're basically taking a similar risk in being disappointed with an unproven purchase. Then again, if an Early Access game sucks, you can actually tell the developer in time for them to do something about it, which is always nice.

107 Reader Comments

Wish you could play a game while it's still a bug-riddled, in-development mess?

I thought this was known as "buying at release".

badum tish.

Edit: It seems a solid model though. Prison Architect has been available since it was a horrendous mess of a game in alpha (through their website) and raised a tonne of money so far. A couple of friends of mine feel more vested in the game than any other, because they've been there the whole time, watched the game change and contributed to development.

Not terribly surprising. They're doing kind of the same thing with DOTA2 as well where you can pay for beta access. Although, it's pretty silly to do considering how easy it is to get a beta key for free.

Most times I've seen something like this done, the exchange is a bit more equal. You get access to the game before it's finished, as well as a final copy of the game for less than release price. In return, you provide beta testing and a guaranteed sale regardless of how the game ends up. It's obviously not for everyone, but it's a much better deal than traditional preorders, IMO.

In some cases the beta testing consists of "we're not making any major changes based on user feedback, we just want you to test the nit-picky stuff and see if you can break anything already baked in" So, you don't really get a feel like you're contributing.

In other cases, you get in on something early (*cough* minecraft *cough*) just to see the developer start slacking off after more and more folks pay to play, eventually ending with some lackluster updates and the lead dev deciding to pass his flagship game off on someone else. He made his millions... time to blow it off.

From a user perspective: I was in the beta for Shadowrun on the Xbox 360, and was therefore an evangelist for the game when it was released. Of course, a lot of that had to do with the sense of community that FASA Studios built around the beta process, even using the gamertags of their most active testers as names for the "bots" in the final game.

On the other hand, I was also in the beta for Age of Empires Online, which I enjoyed well enough, but by the time the game released, I was pretty tired of it and didn't play much.

From a developer perspective: End users almost always find things you never find in-house, so having that extra testing power when the game is *expected* to be buggy and require fixing would be a bonus. Getting their hands on some of the money from sales early could be a big help.

But, just like releasing a demo, they take a risk. If the game is *too* buggy or just plain isn't that good, this information is getting out early and could lead to potential customers canceling their plans to buy (especially if they don't believe the problems will be fixed or fixable by retail launch).

I did this one time for a book, and the only reason I did it was because otherwise the book might not have been made. As a result, I got a beta-tester credit, plus the final book, plus some cred within the fan community.

I would do this only for low-budget stuff. Big budget, like Sim City 5, no freakin way. For that kind of thing, I'll wait a couple years after release, wait until the price comes down and some patches come out. Let the drones pay to be beta testers who don't even get beta-tester credits or special consideration from the fans or devs.

In other cases, you get in on something early (*cough* minecraft *cough*) just to see the developer start slacking off after more and more folks pay to play, eventually ending with some lackluster updates and the lead dev deciding to pass his flagship game off on someone else. He made his millions... time to blow it off.

Minecraft is the example you pick? Really? Really?

I didn't buy it as early as some people (still way before 1.0), but it's continued to see massive improvements. If anything, I'd say Minecraft is an example of how to do it right. Hell, 1.5 just came out recently, which saw some nice improvements if you enjoy building things with redstone circuits (as well as random other things). Quite large for a non-subscription based game post '1.0'.

In other cases, you get in on something early (*cough* minecraft *cough*) just to see the developer start slacking off after more and more folks pay to play, eventually ending with some lackluster updates and the lead dev deciding to pass his flagship game off on someone else. He made his millions... time to blow it off.

Minecraft is the example you pick? Really? Really?

I didn't buy it as early as some people (still way before 1.0), but it's continued to see massive improvements. If anything, I'd say Minecraft is an example of how to do it right. Hell, 1.5 just came out recently, which saw some nice improvements if you enjoy building things with redstone circuits (as well as random other things). Quite large for a non-subscription based game post '1.0'.

Agree 100%.

If this was a AAA game, you would have seen a couple patches after MineCon, and that would have been it.

Instead, we have had what, 2 years of updates since the original version?

And honestly, Notch passing the torch was the best possible thing he could have done. By all accounts, he's only a hobbyist, not a professional programmer, and by passing the codebase off to professional software engineers, he has made for a better product.

I think he's earned his money, even if he never releases another big project. (Although I'm still holding out hope that x10C is interesting.)

I think it is great. Arma III for example already has a pretty large following during alpha and will likely increase during beta. Once final hits there should be no SimCity scale surprises as far as reliability. Don't forget the game cost less than it probably will when it arrives at final.

KSP is excellent. I've been playing since 0.13 and it's come a long way since then. Highly recommended if you're in to space exploration and don't mind setting your own objectives. (it's all sandbox right now but the devs have the intention of adding a campaign of sorts at some point)

I have been playing dozens of beta games. The thing I like most about playing betas is you get to try them for free. Some of the betas I have played never get released. You are doing the developers a favor by playing it as a noob and getting it to crash. Those crash reports help developers figure what needs to be fixed. Usually betas that end up getting released cut the testers off with an option to pay, and get certain beta perks.

Now making people pay for it seems a bit wrong. If when the beta test is over and I like the game, that would be the time to pay.

On the whole I like things like this. The important thing is they're being transparent that the game is in early active development. This way you can set your expectations appropriately.

It also stops Greenlight from staying the Early Access that it had become.

Transparency = good.

Agree. KSP is freakin' amazing, even as an unfinished product. Or quasi-finished. Whatever it is, it's worth dropping the money for the current version.

Let's be fair though............... bear with me here.

How is this any different from what Blizzard does with World of Warcraft?

For years, they have been essentially doing this. Buy an expansion. 2 months later, "oh, we're patching it to fix problems". 2 months after that, "oh, we're adding in a new raid."

I could argue that, because they're doing more than just adding new content, and are "rebalancing" or fixing mechanics, that the "final product" is not really ever "final". Console games, by and large, once upon a time.... were FINAL. This is definitely trending away from that though (see the PS4 announcement and Xbox 720 chatter).

I'm all for increasing the number of ways I can use my paycheck. Also, you get sort of an iterative development which is nice, like for multiplayer games where testing emergent gameplay could be difficult for small teams.

The thing that worries me is if game designers will be able to keep a unified vision for their project, especially when user feedback might come from a more entitled angle since they've already paid.

In some cases the beta testing consists of "we're not making any major changes based on user feedback, we just want you to test the nit-picky stuff and see if you can break anything already baked in" So, you don't really get a feel like you're contributing.

This is why I steer clear of betas these days. I've been in a few in the past and filed detailed bug reports only to see the exact same problem crop up in the finished product. By the time games hit public beta they're already at the stage where the only bugs that'll get fixed are those that break the game for everyone.

Kyle Orland / Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area.